Wilkinson v. Alley
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
This action was tried by the court. It was trespass against the defendant, as an officer, alleging that he took with force, &c., on the 4th of April, 1863, plaintiff’s plough, wheels, axletree, &c., harrow and drag, all of the value of $15, alleged to be the tools of his occupation, and exempt by law from attachment.- It was admitted that the plaintiff was by profession a farmer, and that the aforesaid tools were the same used by him, and required for use on the farm…
Read the full summary
This action was tried by the court. It was trespass against the defendant, as an officer, alleging that he took with force, &c., on the 4th of April, 1863, plaintiff’s plough, wheels, axletree, &c., harrow and drag, all of the value of $15, alleged to be the tools of his occupation, and exempt by law from attachment.- It was admitted that the plaintiff was by profession a farmer, and that the aforesaid tools were the same used by him, and required for use on the farm occupied by him, and that he had no other farming tools at that time left for his use equal to the value of five dollars. The…
1Opinion of the CourtNesmith, J.
The object of our statutes in exempting property from attachment and execution, manifestly is, to protect for the use of poor debtors, including farmers, such tools of their trade, not exceeding a definite amount, as might be indispensable in enabling them to obtain a living in them occupation. The statute of A. D. 1807 exempted from attachment and execution one cow, or, in case the debtor was a mechanic, tools of his occupation to the value of $20, in lieu of said cow. This statute gave the farmer no protection.
The next statute on this subject, passed January 3d, A. D. 1829, was a little…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Dailey v. MayMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1809
3Cited by2 opinions
- Landry v. LandrySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 2007
- William C. BroderUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maine · 2019